In the past, states have used a variety of different methods for evaluating their teachers. With new increasing interest in teacher effectiveness from federal programs like Race to the Top, states have begun a major reform process to evaluate their teachers (Shakman et al., 2012, p.1). These reforms focus on several measurements of teacher performance such as “measures of student growth, observations of teachers, analysis of teacher artifacts, peer review, student reflections and feedback, and participation in professional development” (Shakman et al., 2012, p.1-2). A real shift has taken place to performance-based teacher evaluations. Shakman et al. defines “a performance-based teacher evaluation” as a “system [that] includes multiple measures of teacher performance and provides a range of evidence, demonstrating teacher knowledge and skills, related particularly to student achievement” (Shakman et al., 2012, p.3).
Traditionally, teachers have been evaluated using out-dated models of twenty to thirty minutes or so for evaluations. Twenty to thirty minutes is no where near enough time needed for an accurate depiction of quality teachers, nor is twenty to thirty minutes enough for teachers to get an accurate amount of useful feedback from their supervisors. Additionally, the people who are observing the classrooms are usually the principals. In some cases, a principal might not even have been certified in the same content area as the teacher he or she is observing.
In the recent movement towards the Common Core, newer and more competent teacher evaluation methods are beginning to develop (Youngs, 2013). Some of the new methods the Common Core has presented for evaluating teachers come in the form of “classroom observation protocols, student surveys, value-added models, and teacher performance assessments” (Youngs, 2013, p.1). Some of of the approaches such as the Framework for Teaching and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) focus on classroom observation protocols and student surveys. Teacher value-added models (VAMs) are another Common Core approach “to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness” by focusing primarily on student achievement (Youngs, 2013, p.3). Other evaluation models, like the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) assessments and the educator Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA)-an evaluation tool used for pre-service teachers, vary by focusing on “content-specific” evaluations for teachers (Youngs, 2013, p.3).
Observation Protocols Observation protocols allow for principals, district administrators, and other teachers to evaluate classroom teachers and their instruction. These varied observations allow for teachers to get a detailed, evidence-based report of useful feedback. These observations can also be used by administrators to promote need-based professional development opportunities for teachers (Youngs, 2013, p.15-16). Student Surveys Student surveys “provide insight into aspects of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge.” The Tripod survey, developed by Ronald Ferguson, is one form of student survey that is growing. The Tripod survey looks at “teacher’ instructional practices: care, control, clarify, challenge, captivate, confer, and consolidate” (Youngs, 2013, p.17) These topics help to measure a teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and teacher knowledge (Youngs, 2013, p.17-18). Value-Added Models (VAMs) Value-added models (VAMs) “assess the effects of individual teachers on student learning” (Youngs, 2013, p.19). VAMs are statistical models that look at student achievement over time (Youngs, 2013, p.19). This model is used most effectively when teacher evaluations are looked at over a period of several years. The VAM does not work best for one single year because results may vary from year to year based on observable and unobservable factors: “prior achievement, socioeconomic status, and English language proficiency” as well as “influence of parents and the influence of peers” (Youngs, 2013, p.20). This model works well in conjunction with other models for a summative teacher evaluation (Youngs, 2013, p.19-21).
Teacher Performance Assessments
Teacher performance assessments are focused around teachers submitting multiple portfolios and assessment center exercises (Youngs, 2013, p.22). Some examples of teacher performance assessments come from the NBPTS and edTPA. Both assessments focus on “content-specific assessments designed for teaching candidates at different schooling levels and content areas” (Youngs, 2013, p.22). Both of these assessments “measure and promote teachers’ use of pedagogical content knowledge in instruction” (Youngs, 2013, p.23).
Synopsis
Each method for evaluating teachers has different advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the methods that take a closer look at teacher instruction and pedagogy (i.e. Framework for Teaching, CLASS, NBPTS, & edTPA) are extremely time consuming. These methods require teacher observation hours, and they require extra work for practicing teachers. However, these same methods have the benefit of detailed analyses for teachers and useful feedback for improved instructional strategies. Methods that focus in on student achievement (i.e. VAMs) are much easier to implement in a school; however, these methods are not able to provide teachers with the ample feedback that they need to improve their instructional practices in the classroom. Most states use some combination of all of these methods for evaluating their teachers. The most common method for teacher evaluation is through classroom observations by an administrator. States vary how often each teacher is observed; however, for the most part, novice teachers are observed more often than experienced or consistently higher performing teachers (Shakman et al., 2012).
Overall, developing an effective teacher evaluation systems is complicated and time consuming. Good methods for teacher evaluation systems have been developed; however, time needs to be taken to determine which methods should be used, how many, and what percent of each method it accredited to a teacher’s total effectiveness. Creating an effective teacher evaluation system should simply be a matter of prioritizing the best evaluation aligned with a state’s needs (“Developing Effective Teacher Evaluation Systems: A Conversation with Charlotte Danielson”).
TREND OR ISSUE?
Teacher evaluation systems are a trend that has developed and evolved over time; however, they still remain an issue in the realm of education. These teacher evaluations are being rushed into implementation phase because of programs like Race to the Top and the Common Core State Standards Initiative. These new evaluation systems place burdens upon states, teachers, administrators, and even students. Below are just a few examples issues regarding each area.
Many of the states “are struggling to implement their new teacher-evaluation systems and most of the Race to the Top winners have asked to extend their timetables for completingthis work” (McGuinn, 2012). These evaluations are time-consuming and present many short-term difficulties (McGuinn, 2012).
States are dealing with two main short-term external capacities: “outside consultants and foundations” (McGuinn, 2012). States need the money and resources from these external capacities in order to fund their evaluation programs. Without these investments, the evaluation programs may not be able to sustain themselves over the long term (McGuinn, 2012). States that did not receive grants from Race to the Top funds may fall behind regarding the funds necessary to make this necessary switch work (McGuinn, 2012). All of the states need to be thinking long term about how they plan on implementing improved teacher evaluation programs so that they are able to be self-sufficient and of minimal expense to each state.
In addition to these new teacher evaluations taking place, 45 states are now implementing the Common Core State Standards while more still are implementing new principal evaluations. All of these new reforms and evaluations are taking place simultaneously and place a lot of pressure on each state (McGuinn, 2012). Even Further, many states that are implementing new curriculum, new standards, and new assessments still have not had the time to align all three with one another (Strauss, 2013).
Teachers
Five to fifteen percent of teachers' jobs in the future have the possibility of becoming dependent on their performance evaluations; however, for most teachers, these performance evaluations should be a process of growth and development (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012, 26:20). “Evaluation is about dismissing incompetent teachers” (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012, 32:50). Value-Added Models and student assessments are going to be used for this part of teacher assessments.
These new methods of evaluation provide a sense of uncertainty for teachers because teachers do not know what to expect with the new Common Core State Standard Initiative. Teachers, states, and administrators are now asking themselves the question, “How many years of practice does a teacher need to be really accurately assessed by these assessments” using the end of the year student assessments (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012, 48:10)?
Furthermore, assessments and new standards have not yet been aligned with one another in many states because of the rush to implementation. This issue demonstrates the un-alignment of teacher assessments and of standards being implemented in the classroom (Strauss, 2013). With these inconsistencies in standards and assessments, invalidity of data on teacher evaluations is bound to occur. Merit-based pay is another issue that has arisen with respect to new teacher evaluations. These evaluations are now going to affect teachers' salaries, and anything that affects a person’s salary is bound to be met with some resistance. Because student assessments are one of the major factors contributing to this merit-based pay, groups of low-performing and high-performing students will be met with bias and favoritism (Solmon & Podgursky, 2000, p.13). Teachers may all want to obtain the students with the most promise so as to receive higher ratings on their test scores therefore increasing the chances of receiving a higher salary.
An additional problem placed on teacher evaluations and merit-based pay is the issue of non-tested subjects and non-tested grade levels. Grade level data will not be available for some grades and subjects, and so far, this issue does not have a clear-cut way of being addressed (McGuinn, 2012). All of these inconsistencies build an issue with teacher evaluations. With the measure of student growth counting for at least half of an educator’s rating (in Georgia), teacher evaluations are placed under some serious pressure (Downey, 2013).
Administrators
Administrators are the people who will be carrying out the new teacher observation protocols (McGuinn, 2012). States must be be able to fund the training sessions needed to ready their administrators to evaluate their teachers. Without proper training, these evaluators may not be able to effectively perform their jobs.
Administrators might also be placed with the burden of time-consuming efforts to evaluate their teachers. The administrative evaluators must have time to go into every teacher’s classroom to carry out observation protocols. Additionally, these same administrators must also have time set aside to evaluate each individual teacher’s lesson plans, student work, and other artifacts. All of these evaluations would be taking place in addition to the administrator’s traditional job description duties.
Students
Students are the ones who are going to be faced with the issue of being tested on new standards with new assessments that have both only been implemented for a short period of time. The amount of time that it takes for students to adjust to these new standards and assessments is still unknown. Therefore, the results of these performance-based tests might not possess the accuracy nor validity yet until several years after the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012). Additionally, with teachers' evaluations now affecting their pay-grade, teachers are bound to become bias and assert favoritisms to certain groups of students. Student learning may no longer be the focus of teacher instruction; alternatively, student achievement on standardized test scores may become the focus instead. Groups of students could have the potential to be singled out as unwanted or preferred.
Conclusion
Many issues are present with the implementation of new teacher evaluations. These issues affect the policies of states, the time of administrators, the pay of teachers, and the well-being of students. Policy makers need to take their time in creating teacher evaluations that are complete and valid in order to implement lasting teacher evaluations. So far, the implementation of teacher evaluations is a trend that has developed and evolved over time; however, teacher evaluations are still an issue that needs to be studied more closely before being thrown into schools.
Download a proposal connected to this trend/issue in education here:
Shakman, K., Riordan, J., Sánchez, M.T., Cook, K.D., Fournier, R., & Brett, J. (2012). An Examination of Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation Systems in Five States. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2012-No.129), i-32. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2012129.pdf This report details how five various states, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, go about evaluating their educators.
Smith, M., Chester, M., Johnson, S.M., Jupp, B., & Slover, L. (2012). Teacher Evaluation and the Common Core. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/atil/revisiting-teacher-evaluation/teacher-evaluation-and-the-common-core This informational video broadcasts the new implementations of teacher evaluation reform. It details the importance of the change, as well as what is being done.
Solmon, L.C. & Podgursky, M. (2000). The Pros and Cons of Performance-Based Compensation, 1-26. http://web.missouri.edu/podgurskym/articles/files/Pros_cons.pdf This document goes through the advantages and disadvantages to the new policy of merit-based-pay for teachers.
Youngs, P. (2013). Using Teacher Evaluation Reform and Professional Development to Support Common Core Assessments. Center for American Progress, 1-36. http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/YoungsCommonCore.pdf This document discusses the new Common Core initiative, and how it relates to the new State Standards, teacher licensing, teacher evaluations, and policy recommendations.
OVERVIEW
In the past, states have used a variety of different methods for evaluating their teachers. With new increasing interest in teacher effectiveness from federal programs like Race to the Top, states have begun a major reform process to evaluate their teachers (Shakman et al., 2012, p.1). These reforms focus on several measurements of teacher performance such as “measures of student growth, observations of teachers, analysis of teacher artifacts, peer review, student reflections and feedback, and participation in professional development” (Shakman et al., 2012, p.1-2). A real shift has taken place to performance-based teacher evaluations. Shakman et al. defines “a performance-based teacher evaluation” as a “system [that] includes multiple measures of teacher performance and provides a range of evidence, demonstrating teacher knowledge and skills, related particularly to student achievement” (Shakman et al., 2012, p.3).
Traditionally, teachers have been evaluated using out-dated models of twenty to thirty minutes or so for evaluations. Twenty to thirty minutes is no where near enough time needed for an accurate depiction of quality teachers, nor is twenty to thirty minutes enough for teachers to get an accurate amount of useful feedback from their supervisors. Additionally, the people who are observing the classrooms are usually the principals. In some cases, a principal might not even have been certified in the same content area as the teacher he or she is observing.
In the recent movement towards the Common Core, newer and more competent teacher evaluation methods are beginning to develop (Youngs, 2013). Some of the new methods the Common Core has presented for evaluating teachers come in the form of “classroom observation protocols, student surveys, value-added models, and teacher performance assessments” (Youngs, 2013, p.1). Some of of the approaches such as the Framework for Teaching and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) focus on classroom observation protocols and student surveys. Teacher value-added models (VAMs) are another Common Core approach “to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness” by focusing primarily on student achievement (Youngs, 2013, p.3). Other evaluation models, like the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) assessments and the educator Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA)-an evaluation tool used for pre-service teachers, vary by focusing on “content-specific” evaluations for teachers (Youngs, 2013, p.3).
Observation Protocols
Observation protocols allow for principals, district administrators, and other teachers to evaluate classroom teachers and their instruction. These varied observations allow for teachers to get a detailed, evidence-based report of useful feedback. These observations can also be used by administrators to promote need-based professional development opportunities for teachers (Youngs, 2013, p.15-16).
Student Surveys
Student surveys “provide insight into aspects of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge.” The Tripod survey, developed by Ronald Ferguson, is one form of student survey that is growing. The Tripod survey looks at “teacher’ instructional practices: care, control, clarify, challenge, captivate, confer, and consolidate” (Youngs, 2013, p.17) These topics help to measure a teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and teacher knowledge (Youngs, 2013, p.17-18).
Value-Added Models (VAMs)
Value-added models (VAMs) “assess the effects of individual teachers on student learning” (Youngs, 2013, p.19). VAMs are statistical models that look at student achievement over time (Youngs, 2013, p.19). This model is used most effectively when teacher evaluations are looked at over a period of several years. The VAM does not work best for one single year because results may vary from year to year based on observable and unobservable factors: “prior achievement, socioeconomic status, and English language proficiency” as well as “influence of parents and the influence of peers” (Youngs, 2013, p.20). This model works well in conjunction with other models for a summative teacher evaluation (Youngs, 2013, p.19-21).
Teacher Performance Assessments
Teacher performance assessments are focused around teachers submitting multiple portfolios and assessment center exercises (Youngs, 2013, p.22). Some examples of teacher performance assessments come from the NBPTS and edTPA. Both assessments focus on “content-specific assessments designed for teaching candidates at different schooling levels and content areas” (Youngs, 2013, p.22). Both of these assessments “measure and promote teachers’ use of pedagogical content knowledge in instruction” (Youngs, 2013, p.23).
Synopsis
Each method for evaluating teachers has different advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the methods that take a closer look at teacher instruction and pedagogy (i.e. Framework for Teaching, CLASS, NBPTS, & edTPA) are extremely time consuming. These methods require teacher observation hours, and they require extra work for practicing teachers. However, these same methods have the benefit of detailed analyses for teachers and useful feedback for improved instructional strategies. Methods that focus in on student achievement (i.e. VAMs) are much easier to implement in a school; however, these methods are not able to provide teachers with the ample feedback that they need to improve their instructional practices in the classroom.
Most states use some combination of all of these methods for evaluating their teachers. The most common method for teacher evaluation is through classroom observations by an administrator. States vary how often each teacher is observed; however, for the most part, novice teachers are observed more often than experienced or consistently higher performing teachers (Shakman et al., 2012).
Overall, developing an effective teacher evaluation systems is complicated and time consuming. Good methods for teacher evaluation systems have been developed; however, time needs to be taken to determine which methods should be used, how many, and what percent of each method it accredited to a teacher’s total effectiveness. Creating an effective teacher evaluation system should simply be a matter of prioritizing the best evaluation aligned with a state’s needs (“Developing Effective Teacher Evaluation Systems: A Conversation with Charlotte Danielson”).
TREND OR ISSUE?
Teacher evaluation systems are a trend that has developed and evolved over time; however, they still remain an issue in the realm of education. These teacher evaluations are being rushed into implementation phase because of programs like Race to the Top and the Common Core State Standards Initiative. These new evaluation systems place burdens upon states, teachers, administrators, and even students. Below are just a few examples issues regarding each area.
Many of the states “are struggling to implement their new teacher-evaluation systems and most of the Race to the Top winners have asked to extend their timetables for completingthis work” (McGuinn, 2012). These evaluations are time-consuming and present many short-term difficulties (McGuinn, 2012).
States are dealing with two main short-term external capacities: “outside consultants and foundations” (McGuinn, 2012). States need the money and resources from these external capacities in order to fund their evaluation programs. Without these investments, the evaluation programs may not be able to sustain themselves over the long term (McGuinn, 2012). States that did not receive grants from Race to the Top funds may fall behind regarding the funds necessary to make this necessary switch work (McGuinn, 2012). All of the states need to be thinking long term about how they plan on implementing improved teacher evaluation programs so that they are able to be self-sufficient and of minimal expense to each state.
In addition to these new teacher evaluations taking place, 45 states are now implementing the Common Core State Standards while more still are implementing new principal evaluations. All of these new reforms and evaluations are taking place simultaneously and place a lot of pressure on each state (McGuinn, 2012). Even Further, many states that are implementing new curriculum, new standards, and new assessments still have not had the time to align all three with one another (Strauss, 2013).
Teachers
Five to fifteen percent of teachers' jobs in the future have the possibility of becoming dependent on their performance evaluations; however, for most teachers, these performance evaluations should be a process of growth and development (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012, 26:20). “Evaluation is about dismissing incompetent teachers” (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012, 32:50). Value-Added Models and student assessments are going to be used for this part of teacher assessments.These new methods of evaluation provide a sense of uncertainty for teachers because teachers do not know what to expect with the new Common Core State Standard Initiative. Teachers, states, and administrators are now asking themselves the question, “How many years of practice does a teacher need to be really accurately assessed by these assessments” using the end of the year student assessments (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012, 48:10)?
Furthermore, assessments and new standards have not yet been aligned with one another in many states because of the rush to implementation. This issue demonstrates the un-alignment of teacher assessments and of standards being implemented in the classroom (Strauss, 2013). With these inconsistencies in standards and assessments, invalidity of data on teacher evaluations is bound to occur.
Merit-based pay is another issue that has arisen with respect to new teacher evaluations. These evaluations are now going to affect teachers' salaries, and anything that affects a person’s salary is bound to be met with some resistance. Because student assessments are one of the major factors contributing to this merit-based pay, groups of low-performing and high-performing students will be met with bias and favoritism (Solmon & Podgursky, 2000, p.13). Teachers may all want to obtain the students with the most promise so as to receive higher ratings on their test scores therefore increasing the chances of receiving a higher salary.
An additional problem placed on teacher evaluations and merit-based pay is the issue of non-tested subjects and non-tested grade levels. Grade level data will not be available for some grades and subjects, and so far, this issue does not have a clear-cut way of being addressed (McGuinn, 2012).
All of these inconsistencies build an issue with teacher evaluations. With the measure of student growth counting for at least half of an educator’s rating (in Georgia), teacher evaluations are placed under some serious pressure (Downey, 2013).
Administrators
Administrators are the people who will be carrying out the new teacher observation protocols (McGuinn, 2012). States must be be able to fund the training sessions needed to ready their administrators to evaluate their teachers. Without proper training, these evaluators may not be able to effectively perform their jobs.Administrators might also be placed with the burden of time-consuming efforts to evaluate their teachers. The administrative evaluators must have time to go into every teacher’s classroom to carry out observation protocols. Additionally, these same administrators must also have time set aside to evaluate each individual teacher’s lesson plans, student work, and other artifacts. All of these evaluations would be taking place in addition to the administrator’s traditional job description duties.
Students
Students are the ones who are going to be faced with the issue of being tested on new standards with new assessments that have both only been implemented for a short period of time. The amount of time that it takes for students to adjust to these new standards and assessments is still unknown. Therefore, the results of these performance-based tests might not possess the accuracy nor validity yet until several years after the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (Revisiting Teacher Evaluation Forum, 2012).
Additionally, with teachers' evaluations now affecting their pay-grade, teachers are bound to become bias and assert favoritisms to certain groups of students. Student learning may no longer be the focus of teacher instruction; alternatively, student achievement on standardized test scores may become the focus instead. Groups of students could have the potential to be singled out as unwanted or preferred.
Conclusion
Many issues are present with the implementation of new teacher evaluations. These issues affect the policies of states, the time of administrators, the pay of teachers, and the well-being of students. Policy makers need to take their time in creating teacher evaluations that are complete and valid in order to implement lasting teacher evaluations. So far, the implementation of teacher evaluations is a trend that has developed and evolved over time; however, teacher evaluations are still an issue that needs to be studied more closely before being thrown into schools.
Download a proposal connected to this trend/issue in education here:ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY